You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Modern science is founded upon unbelief. In its five-hundred year history science never once attributed the things of nature to God. Although there were men of science who confessed belief in God, they did so while swearing allegiance to the principles of science. Therefore, their personal beliefs would not alter the nature of science. So, science, by its foundational principle ignores God or declares that there is no God. If we assumed for a second that science declared that God Is, then there would be nothing better to do in the universe than the praising of God, because there is nothing nobler than God. It follows therefore, that the universal purpose of the universe is God. Since science happens in the universe, it must have something to do with that purpose. However, as we see it, science works against purpose, and so, from this fact and from learning how opposites are paired and how they take turns in the universe, it follows that there is a counterpart to purpose. Science, therefore, is the counter-purpose that is opposed to purpose, the same way as sorrow is a counterpart to happiness, as evil is to good, as death is to life, as falsehood is to truth, as hate is to love, as war is to peace. Now in this essay I will show that science is wrong about everything by examining the most influential branches of science. I will show that science is harmful. I will also show that the Lord God Lives. I will show that choosing science is a fatal course of action to earth but choosing God will restore life in it. In my conclusion I will offer solutions and propose that all men of science should steer towards a goal of life, not wander towards death.

Author Bio

I was born in Ethiopia and leaned to read and write at St. Rufael Church in Gondar. There too, I studied the Epistle of St. John. That was as far as my formal education went but amidst the frightening tempest of the Western ideological conquest of the mind, I was taught of the Lord.

Interesting essay. But notice your claim being made here. Have capitalised the important points.

"If we ASSUMED for a second that science declared that God Is, then there would be nothing better to do in the universe than the praising of God, because there is nothing nobler than God. It FOLLOWS THEREFORE, that the universal purpose of the universe is God."

You 'assume' a claim, and from this assumption 'follow therefore' from it. So your argument rests on pure assumption (for more than a second).

Also if science did prove a God it wouldnt necessarily follow that praising that God would be a worthwhile activity. That God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God.

The reason I used the term "if we assumed that science declared that God Is" was to bring men of science to the same thinking as those of Christians and to show them that in Christianity, Orthodox Christianity that is, God is the purpose of the universe. It was not to use science as a basis toward a conclusion. Since the entire message is especially for men of science, the point is to demonstrate that, when there Is God (for the mind that knows God Is), there is no nobler job than the praising of the Lord God. So it was just a proposal for the man of science to be in the shoes of the Christian for a second.

Since I did not ask for science to prove God, the question of whether science would then deem the praising of God a worthwhile activity is irrelevant. I see that you strove to deploy science's habit of providing competing identities in order to diminish an identity when you remarked: "God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God." Science created many competing identities and elevated many idolatries in order to overthrow the Christian faith. Its preference has always been to fight Christianity using what it calls 'religion' and in the process science puts itself above the fray and its principals as 'gods'. This is a trick science used for five hundred years. I think that time has now expired.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Jack Hamilton James replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 02:14 GMT

Dear Mulugeta,

How do you know that God doesn't want humans to do science?

You see there is a difference between cause and purpose. Science only concerns causes. Should we assign any purpose to science? No. It is simply about correctly describing causes.

That is why it is wrong to say evolution has a purpose of somekind, or that the purpose of life is evolution. When we speak of causes there is no purpose, just causes.

If your charge is against scientists who 'believe' in science, those who assign purpose to cause, then this is a fair point to make.

However to make the further claim, as you do, that God doesnt want humans to describe causes, which is to speak correctly about, presumably here, 'God's world', is actually to do just as the those who use science as a purpose do, as you are using purpose when it comes to causes.

God's first instruction to man in Genesis is to stay away from the knowledge tree (science). God told man that the fruit from the knowledge tree leads to death because the fruit is tempting and would seduce man to vie for godhood and to compete against God. What science did to earth is exactly as God said it would. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of...

God's first instruction to man in Genesis is to stay away from the knowledge tree (science). God told man that the fruit from the knowledge tree leads to death because the fruit is tempting and would seduce man to vie for godhood and to compete against God. What science did to earth is exactly as God said it would. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden for eating from the knowledge tree. What is this Garden? It is a metaphor. In the midst of a vast desert of space of lands, moons and stars, the Lord God planted a beautiful garden - earth - and furnished it with animated habitat teeming with life sustained by a puzzling circuitry of measured diversity that maintains abiding vigor.

The supply circuitry or the cycles of natural supply of the garden is furnished for fair consumption to maintain strength and not for the excesses of drunkenness or mindless draining. For many days man lived with adequate consumption of furnished amenities and the moderation allowed the stock of furniture, which are the fruits of the earth, to be refilled by the endowed glory of replenishment (replenishment is a miraculous gift from God). This life of delightful security changed after the Black Death event that swept Western Europe in the fourteenth century Anno Domini. Out of the bubonic Black Death event arose an invigorated counter-purpose known as the renaissance movement and it imbued the Western European person with an unbridled fancy for the devouring of the whole earth. The Western European person, for the ruthless extraction of resources, fashioned a doctrine of counterfeit knowledge he named ‘science’ and pressed ahead and unfairly ravaged the earth. Adam and Eve lost the Garden and we now have that metaphor unfolding before our eyes. We are losing the earth because it is dying. You don't see it, do you?

I don't know what message of mine you are arguing against in your discussion of cause and purpose. I provided an experimental summary in the essay that proved Mr. Darwin's evolution idea wrong. Whether Mr. Darwin tried to show that there is cause rather than purpose is meaningless since Mr. Darwin's elaborate discussion on 'decent' was elaborately wrong.

Writing is what men do. Therefore Genesis, its metaphors, is a product of men, not God. These are men of history who have used science to understand human nature, these are men who have causally understood the mind ( in particular our emotions, and how we respond to what we don't know) and then using this causal information have then applied their purposes as a method of seduction, control and power.

Religion is the sum exercise of this control.

Of course, religion has and had many benefits, chiefly it creates order within a population (of one religion) and a moral structure. I can understand the point of your story and agree with its sentiment about where the world is heading, but we dont, in my view, need a God to see that and nor can we blame causal information (for that is all science is).

A better future lies in a more moral future, perhaps realised by a religion of sorts, but underlying purpose is always a best guess, so its very hard to say what value should be at its core.

From a Jewish perspective, and the Jews invented the monotheist God, the mythic narrative of the garden in Genesis is about growing up. Remember that after eating the apple Adam and Eve's eyes were opened. This is not that different from the myth of Narcissis, where after seeing his image he knew himself deeper. He fell into the trap of loving his image. The Genesis myth this similar, and Adam and EVe were no longer the same and life was no longer the same. Children in growing up go through passages of such change. The symbolic idea can be applied to humanity at large, and in some ways the scientific revolution could be seen as a sort of eating of the fruit.

The narrative is about a set up. The forbidden fruit was set up in the middle of the garden and YHWH then says "Don't eat that." That is what I call a set up. Adonai or God would have been disappointed in his human creation if they had not eaten it.

Science - so called "modern science" - was conceived and hatched in willful antagonism specifically to the Christian belief. Science then waged its war against the faith on all fronts. Almost every subject of science conducts that war in its own realm. Early in school, children are subjected to a grueling competition of reading witchcraft and mystery books...

Science - so called "modern science" - was conceived and hatched in willful antagonism specifically to the Christian belief. Science then waged its war against the faith on all fronts. Almost every subject of science conducts that war in its own realm. Early in school, children are subjected to a grueling competition of reading witchcraft and mystery books particularly designed to remove them from Christian way of life. With handsome payment, a legion of forces are assigned to go around shopping for stories in old idolatries that resembled stories in the Christian faith. Then specialized story tellers publish mystery books where they allege the Christian narrative to have been borrowed from some early beliefs. To this end, all other idolatries and beliefs are companions to science. In the "natural" sciences domain, the strategy of science instructions is creating senseless folk. In the "natural" science front considerable resources (earth's precious resources) are spent to ensure the Christian faith is defeated in every person's mind. The "natural" sciences instruct students to shut-off their natural senses and to follow the procedures of the science doctrine alone. A rigorous recital of the procedures create, out of children and out of college graduates, indoctrinated "zombies" fanatically hostile to Christianity. Also, since fostering competing identities are vital to diminishing the Christian faith, the science religion brings all other beliefs and idolatries to the same platform as Christianity. In fact, one of the first steps of the renaissance movement was to intervene in the Christian scripture and to declare that interpretation is personal. Then a multiplicity of feuding "christianities" emerged immediately relegating authentic Christianity to the mire of contention where science enthrones itself as the adjudicating authority hovering over the mire. The goal is, for the western science man to acquire godlike powers over earth and over all its inhabitants. It is science's standard trick to create competing identities to defeat an identity. If, for example, science wants to get rid of Mr. Jack Hamilton James, it manufactures dolls, many dolls, and calls them each "Mr. Jack Hamilton James "and it starts to elevate the "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" dolls to a platform of celebrity. Then it gradually starts to bring dishonor to them. When, by spectators, unanimity is reached as to the vileness of the many "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" attributes, science proceeds to eliminate all that is "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" and it starts doing so from the honorable authentic Mr. Jack Hamilton James since, by reason of the competing dolls, Mr. Jack Hamilton James has become just one of them. So, your expression: "...we don't, in my view, need a God to see that and nor can we blame causal information ..." is a simple derivative of the science motif. God is everything and we need Him in everything, everywhere.

In all its history, the earth has seen nothing more beautiful than Christianity. It is compassion, it is humility, it is fairness, it is love, it is peace and it is tranquility. Two major evidences distinguish Christianity from any other in authenticity. While many watched, our Lord Jesus Christ was Crucified and Buried, and He rose up in Resurrection on the Third Day and Ascended to Heaven on the fortieth day. The second is the prophecies of scripture that unfolded with remarkable truthfulness. Writing that men do that you have in mind isn't capable of prophecy. Nothing, absolutely nothing compares to Christianity. It is as much vital to us as water is to earth. It is the only hope there is that we have. On the other hand, science is an institution of subjugation and of class and of contempt and of derision. Overbearing pride and presumption drive science institutions. Hubris is the hallmark of the science culture. Humility, love and compassion are objects of ridicule in science quarters. The man of science rejects God and the morality God gave us because he wants to be god himself and intends to provide his version of morality, which he calls "ethics" to the inhabitants of the earth. When it is declared "there is no God" moral codes are given by the powerful - by the coercive force. That is what is happening now. The science capitals, America and England, are imposing on the dwellers of earth what is their version of the moral code that needs to be obeyed. So, in brief, the purpose of the "no God" science journey is to replace it with a new god.

As for who the new "god" is, we can look at one example. In his book: "The Grand Design" Mr. Stephen Hawking (along with co-author Mr. Leonard Mlodinow), citing some conjectures of Mr. Richard Feynman, which, in science quarters is known by a physics term “sum over histories,” stated: "… In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn’t follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there’s a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time. Some histories will be more probable than others, and the sum will normally be dominated by a single history that starts with the creation of the universe and culminates in the state under consideration. But there will be different histories for different possible states of the universe at the present time. This leads to a radically different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us."

By measurement and observation, Mr. Hawking and his assistant are referring to their own theorems of physics which they themselves forge. So the English and the American men of science are already openly declaring themselves “gods” who created the universe and its history by their mathematical observations. Their statements implicitly demand all tongues and tribes of the world bow down to them. In the same book Mr. Hawking also writes: "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Since he is the god (subject matter authority is the code word for it) he doesn't have to reason. His mere declaration is enough. Inspired by this god, many science minions wrote ridiculous books on how the universe created itself from nothing. The mind of man is under an awful tyranny of the science doctrine and the cruelty of it is that food and amenities are denied for failing to submit to it.

I appreciate your points with respect to (as you say) the emerging 'culture of science'. I am not a scientist i am a philosopher. Unfortunately you are failing to distinguish between 'science' and the 'culture of science'. Science is absolutely none of the things you hold against it. It is merely to speak as correctly as one can about the causal nature of the world. That is all. Christianity may well be the best method for ethics and culture and the direction/purpose of mankind, and may well be better than any new age 'culture of science' (e.g. Sam Harris). But again, there is a difference between causes and purposes, science is only to recognise the former, any assigning of purpose to it - is not science.

Your enemy isnt science - the simple correct observation of reality - for without it you couldnt write or think as well as you do.

It does have to be pointed out there was a time when the western world was based on theology or theocracy. We generally call it the middle ages, from 600CE to 1500CE. I attach an image to illustrate a common practice during this time period. This sort of thing in that age of little entertainment were the spectator fun people had, along with watching witch burnings, breaking on the wheel and so forth. It was not a lot of fun, and murder rates were 50 times what they are now in the US or EU. The problem with the idea of returning to some age where belief in God is the main foundation of society is that we have been there and done that.

Humans and maybe most intelligent tool making life forms in the universe are good at creating positive feedback for themselves. It may have started with Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago when they made fire and took themselves off the predatory menu. Science and technology just allows us to do this in an exponential amplified manner. In terms of our behavior it is quantitatively different, but it is qualitatively much the same as ever before. This means it was the same even during the middle ages that is sometimes referred to as the age of faith.

The western society may have had what it called 'theocracy' but it is clear from the picture you presented and from the historical information many provide that the western world was a material world. That cruelty in the picture, if true, demonstrates that the claim of 'faith in God' was merely cosmetic. I understand there was some desire to be godly by some...

The western society may have had what it called 'theocracy' but it is clear from the picture you presented and from the historical information many provide that the western world was a material world. That cruelty in the picture, if true, demonstrates that the claim of 'faith in God' was merely cosmetic. I understand there was some desire to be godly by some people but clearly it is easy to see from the available data that the majority of western society placed great credence in gold-digging than in the theology of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Apparently, the intense desire for wealth and power exploded in the form of the Renascence Movement which in turn led to countless savagery down to this day - savagery even worse than the picture you showed. Merciless colonialism, callous robbery and the ruthless extermination of fellow man became the standard praxis of the post 'theocracy' western society. So the barbarity was not in the 'faith' component of the society but rather in the gold-digging component of it. Of course, men of science who detest God will be glad to project the superficial 'theocracy' appellation in the 'middle ages' as a strawman for godly society in order to defeat any imaginings of an equitable future society.

Without indulging in the realm of the 1.5 million years ago knowledge fantasy, I can give you that there were indeed some godly elements in western society. Those godly elements left descendants in what we see today as the Amish. I don't have inside knowledge of the Amish, but from what I see in the public information, their self-restraint to indulge in the excesses of western delicious living pretty much tells a story of the presence of thoughtful forbears. No need to spoil the gist of the message in petty argumentation here, but I wish to summarize that moderate living that I am appealing for can be exemplified by the Amish way of life in the west.

Boko Haram means education is a sin. In 1950, Ethiopia had 16 mio inhabitants. The number rose up to more than 100 mio today. Compared with cities this is a modest growth. Damaskus got simultaneously 16 times bigger. Women in Kenia have on average 4.4 children. Is the Lord resposible for such perspectiveless perspective?

You saw the fly hated the fire. That is fine. However, you will be in error to conclude the bee is the fly when you find that the bee doesn't like the fire either. There is more to my plea than an equation with a certain Boko Haram. As for the population figures you conjectured on, I took publicly available data and projected population growth using the pre-industrial revolution figures and you can see in the curves attached that science ignorantly transgressed to infringe the natural balance of life that God put in place. The western science man oozed prideful 'knowledge' and equated himself to God in knowledge; but look at what the bitter fruit of that prideful knowledge has become. Do you see now that your blame is misplaced?

I suppose it comes down an argument that your infinite invisible man in the sky who works magic is true while the other guy's (Muslims etc) infinite invisible man in the sky who works magic is false.

God is a nice idea in a way, just as Santa Claus is a nice idea. That does not provide an argument for God's existence, but is just a special pleading. Special pleading is a classic flaw of syllogism and argumentation.

World population around the time of Moses was about 50 million. By the time of the Caesers or Jesus around 250 million, by the high middle ages around 500 million and prior to the industrial revolution close to a billion. The surge of population was ongoing long before the scientific revolution. Malthus argued there would be a population crash from starvation, but the industrial revolution provided positive feedbacks that avoided that.

Will we avoid a population die-off or collapse indefinitely? I can't say. I think this has ultimately more to do with the nature of the human species than the fact we know things about quantum mechanics.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims obey the ruLe: Be fertile, get more, and fill the Earth. Mulugeta's attachment demonstrates the problem:

There live already about ten times more people than responsible.

Not just their number is growing rapidly. Global advertizing makes the poor too desiring a life in luxurity. However, this is not feasible due to limited recources, increasing amount of waste and pollution, and many other problems that were not yet envisioned by Malthus and Marx, not to mention the fathers of Bible. That's why I support Kadin's way out. Naively I hope for minimal resposibility evem among Catholics and Muslims. Science provided the option of contraception.

The attachment shows a declining number between 1600 and 1650. In Middle Europe, a 30 years lasting war "fortunately" decimated the population more than did the plague. From the perspective of irresponsible growth of population, the largely peaceful era after 1950 did split the world into those who got richer with less children and those who will go on getting precarious with a "treasure" of too many children.

In many a science man, in whom the antipathy seed was planted in early childhood, I see the feeling of aversion to God already. But I was hoping to encounter amenability to the persuasion of reason, however intense the dislike maybe. I provided data that can be verified very easily and I did so with clarity, without complicating anything. I can't invest time and energy to entertain vague insinuations and cold declarations. Please, let us reason - point by point. 'Be fruitful and multiply' is consistent with the pre-industrial revolution population growth. The industrial revolution messed up the earth in irreversible many ways. The data is there. The earth is here. You can't hide it. The calamity striking the earth is much more devastating than the little perceptional snit you are trying to avoid. The remedy, if it is not too late already, is to stop the root cause.

By greed, the scientific west destroyed the once vibrant earth that God furnished. God furnished the earth for the "poor" too. The poor who are feared to be "too desiring a life in luxury" by way of "global advertisement" did not benefit one iota in the course of the earth's destruction. Now the western man of science says he likes the idea of eliminating, himself as god deciding who to eliminate. There is no consideration of reason in all this, is there? There is only projection of might.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 11:14 GMT

Greed belongs to competition among animals including men. Was there really a "once vibrant earth"? History and natural sciences provide ample evidence for cruel gorrecting limitations to population growth in nature.

Since I was baptized and have still the bible at hand, I am open to your arguments and anything but arrogant. When I was a child, I experienced a horrible war, hunger and other "natural", in the sense of godgiven, corrections to the imbalance of population.

Well, we humans are greedy animals, with or without science, with or without God. However, science may provide the option to steer our evolution in a responsible manner that does no longer require wars, hunger, etc.

What about your attachment, the alarming red data are perhaps close to reality. Aren't the green ones just guesswork? Please give your reference.

Mr Wudu,the personali faith is like a personal sphere of thoughts.I am persuaded that the goods are more numerous that the unconscious and that in all religions, countries.The freedom, the democracy,the tolerance is a torch of truth, a foundamental.I am persuded that a christian, a muslim, a jewish and a buddhist can discuss in dining around a table in...

Mr Wudu,the personali faith is like a personal sphere of thoughts.I am persuaded that the goods are more numerous that the unconscious and that in all religions, countries.The freedom, the democracy,the tolerance is a torch of truth, a foundamental.I am persuded that a christian, a muslim, a jewish and a buddhist can discuss in dining around a table in respecting what are this universal love,this humility in front of thjis infinite entropy and altruistuic universalism.This planet Mr Wugu is not perfect.If this planet is in this state, it is not due to this or that but simply due to unconscious in all countries implying bad governances and acts of evil.In USA and in ethiopia it is the same problem, it exists good and bad persons.The capitalism or the socialism or the facts that we line in occident are not thez problem, the systems are not really thje problem.If africa is in this state it is due to a lack of security and governments, strong and laws.So the weakest persons are obliged to accept the crazzy line of reasonings of some crazzy politicians liking opulences and power.I am suggesting that africa makes its quiet governemental révolutions in sorting these persons simply.Because the firsts who pay the prize of this crazzyness is the people.Have you seen in syria ,irak...Is it a joke,??? The hormons ,the vanity ,the power,the bad like always Mr Wugu.I live in belgium here also we have these problems and don't imagine that it is easy to live here you know, it is difficult for example psychologically speaking here in wallonia.Always these bad governances in all countries.They are criminals simply and they destroy what we have created in the past.In France and in many countries Mr Wugu we have made our révolutions to stop the bad governances and change the laws for the well of people simply.I beleive that africa must make the same with the help of this ONU G20.Too much of persons suffer and it is not acceptable simply.7,3 billions Mr Mugu and the majority are good persons, a minority implies this chaos and this everwhere.I know that in ethiopia you have suffered a lot, it is a difficult country considering the water and food and jobs I am knowing.But it is complex in fact, it isn not easy to solve all our major problems.Africa needs helps quickly indeed and ONU must take its responsabilities.You imagine the psychology of children of africa ? They have forgotten the hope due to these adults having destroyed these hopes.The religions and the ideologies and systems are not really the problem.These hormonal unconscious comportments yes.the tolerance ,the democracy, the humanism,the universalism,the universal love are our foundamentals.I am personally christian and I respect all others cultures and religions with tolerance.It is not complicated in fact this universal altruistic love.

We are after all in the same boat.The solutions exist Mr Wugu ,it is just that the global system and the unconsciousness have implied chaotical systems.We are soon 10 billions.And we have problems in many centers of interests.The poverty, the criminilaties, the food, the water, the energy, the jobs,the climate.....all these parameters are a reality indeed.It is due to many paramters if we are in this global situation.The global system has simply reached its limits.We have planted seeds ,so we have now the fruits.It is a question of quick adaptation now Mr Wugu for the well of all without exception.The climate ,it is too late, it is the adaptation now the most important.We are obliged to change this global system.It is not a question of capitalism or communism or religions or this or that in fact.It is justy that we must all accept now that we must really change the system.The richest, the persons the highest placed in governments,ONU G20 World bank must understand that if we do not change quickly,we are going to be in the chaotical exponentials.And all looses in this case, all without exception.If we want to reach the points of equilibrium,we must liberate these funds and open our earth and humanity to our universe, first this solar system.We had a problem of limits and numbers on earth, not when we see this solar system,mars, Wheel in space with an artificial gravitation due to rotation reaching g....The potential is infinite and in this case all children of africa also are educated, and their parents them have a job to live simply and hope.We have the potential to solve this planet Mr Wugu and permit to all to live with dignity and in the universalism.It is possible, all wins without exception, the richest like the poorest simply.It lacks money, space, matter,jobs...on earth, the limits and the numbers always....but not when we open our humanity to this universe.Regards and universally and altruistically...

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

You are absolutely correct about the implausibility of science.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about any imaginary “universal purpose of the universe by an invisible God.” The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

You talk of a "visible universe of infinite physical surface and infinite non-surface light" and you start from it as given. If someone takes you to the wilderness and there he provides you with a beautiful home furnished with beds, chairs, tables, light, water, food etc, would you just ignore everything and assume that such furniture is given, that it is there by...

You talk of a "visible universe of infinite physical surface and infinite non-surface light" and you start from it as given. If someone takes you to the wilderness and there he provides you with a beautiful home furnished with beds, chairs, tables, light, water, food etc, would you just ignore everything and assume that such furniture is given, that it is there by itself without anyone preparing it? You don't sense some naivety in that, do you? It takes an extraordinary plunge in pretension to be rid of the overwhelming natural perception of creation and replace it with a philosophy that impresses an artificial notion such as that something happens without someone making it happen. It takes an extraordinary ritual in delusion to consider that a dull, unconscious, dead matter starts to move around without an input or instruction and begins to construct itself into sophistication of dazzling regularity and into patterns of perceptible beauty. In everything that you touch, that you see, that you smell, that you taste, that you feel, you see God. The stone that you touch is bound together as a solid unit and it doesn't have to be so. The timber shouldn't be the way it is. Any why are they side by side? Water shouldn't be liquid and all the diverse state and nature of things shouldn't be there, much less to benefit other things. It is an encouragement to dullness that science drives many to be blind and assume things as given. I advise you to think a little more.

As for science, it is a dangerous thing. The saying: 'little knowledge is dangerous' (which was modified from Mr. Alexander Pope's cliché "a little learning is a dangerous thing") impressively befits science. Any individual person is always of little knowledge and the danger that one person can cause is minimal to nothing. So 'little knowledge is dangerous' does not make sense to attribute to individual persons. But science, which commands kingdoms and nations and powerful institutions, causes immediate or delayed peril of significant scale by its evident little knowledge. With insufficient knowledge science has been, for many years now, taking disastrous steps the sum total of which has now brought the earth to serious trouble. The Fukushima nuclear disaster is a product of science's little knowledge adventure. The building of atomic and neuron bombs is a little knowledge step. You don't build bombs that you are not going to use. The toasting of the earth with fuel is a little knowledge thing and the areas of harm such little knowledge steps affect are too many to count. Science's little knowledge packages that translated into massive operations have made the earth desolate already. The problem is not that it is always wrong, but that it always acts based on little knowledge.

Say that the only information you have about an object are some pictures of it which you are given.

In every picture the object is always perfectly still.

Do you believe the thought: "The object IS moving"?

Or, do you believe the thought: "The object IS NOT moving"?

Next— there seems to be a back and a front to the object. And, the front of the object is always facing to the right.

At this point in the story would you tell someone who believes the thought that the object is NOT moving to "Stand in front of the object"?

Next add one more piece of information:

This object is, in actuality, a disguised kind of arrow.

In which case— the idea you believe in no longer matters. You know that you shouldn't stand in front of a moving arrow.

It's an adaptation of Zeno's "paradox" of the arrow. Zeno was trying to help Parmenides make a point about the difference between believing and knowing. And in those days, everyone had seen many (many, many) animals killed by arrows. Because in those days it was how they got food.

Moral: If you care about yourself, you know that you don't stand in front of an arrow.

You make some interesting points... Not sure why you want to live in a dictatorship where everything is restricted. To me God is about gaining experience to know that it is real. So if you are going to limit that to only a few things and mostly praising the Lord... you will be in a boring hell...

Being from Ethiopia I can tell you firsthand that a social life of praising the Lord is a society you can't have enough of. There is love, compassion and humility and boredom has no habitation in it. The problem now around the world is that societies are polluted, living a decadent, immoral and pleasure-seeking life. So a person already shaped by a spoiled society...

Being from Ethiopia I can tell you firsthand that a social life of praising the Lord is a society you can't have enough of. There is love, compassion and humility and boredom has no habitation in it. The problem now around the world is that societies are polluted, living a decadent, immoral and pleasure-seeking life. So a person already shaped by a spoiled society may not be able to imagine life that doesn't have the immodesty he or she is accustomed to, the same way as a drug dealer who makes a lot of money from drug-dealing won't like a modest life as an employee of some sort.

A life of praising the Lord is not a dictatorship. The world is under a dictatorship now already. You are not aware of it maybe because you are the privileged beneficiary of the dictatorship. A new world order was established about seventy years ago when European colonialism crumbled. The new world order replaced the colonial system but the new system was just a sophisticated copy of the old. New tools like the World Bank, the IMF etc were also put in place to advance the new order. As the former World Bank President James Wolfensohn once remarked in a Stanford talk, the new world order was setup with an eighty-twenty rule, meaning eighty percent of the world's resources or wealth would be for the west and twenty percent would be for the rest of the world. To maintain this order, heavy yokes were laid on the so called "third world" countries and the focus was to ensure that these "third world" nations are incapable of extracting resources underneath the territories they occupy. The yoke on African nations was particularly cumbersome. Intelligence forces were deployed inciting upheavals and these forces were particularly effective sowing discord between brothers and they racked the continent with civil wars, disease and famine. In the hands of the west Ethiopia received the most wicked of the afflictions. If by any chance any of the "third world" nations slipped from the yoke like China did, then "all hell would break loose." China is now asserting itself in many ways and vying to extract resources not just in China but also in Africa. China is about to eat the west's "entitlement" breakfast and lunch and dinner. The west may choose to overlook China and decide to squeeze more from the Africans but the Africans are not getting any of their resources at all, therefore there is no point in that. So, America and China will have to 'duke' it out among themselves to darwin survive it. When they do, you will no longer have the delicious living that you are used to.

As for the "resource based economy" you directed me to, I want to point out to you that the world's resources are finite and speedily dwindling as we speak. The rich want those resources, not some resources but all of them. I can understand economics as an instrument of resource robbery. Other than that I don't see it making much sense.

I don't think you investigated a resource based economy - web site is the Venus Project. https://www.thevenusproject.com/ or you can watch a YouTube video called Zeitgeist Moving Forward.

This is the only economic theory that truly addresses the finite nature of resources on this planet. And it uses the brilliance of science to assure that abundance is achieved by all at the most optimum levels of efficiency. And their would be no rich and powerful because there is no money in this system. So just going back to living like cave men isn't an alternative that people will accept... so why not use science under the guide of God's consciousness (love) to make the best world we can. Prosperous, free, and most importantly balanced.

Take care and good luck in the contest... and most important... God Bless!

I am definitely not the only defender of science who doesn't agree with his attitude: "an act of murder is committed on earth by men of science". My essay argues for almost the opposite: more reasonable evolution instead.

However, Wudu's cry for help deserves, as Crowell correctly remarked, more attention than e.g. quantum mechanics, and it is written in excellent English.

Science haram (= it is a sin)? It surely is irresponsibly oriented so far.

Dear Mulugeta ! Science has become a tool of the economic production line and most scientists are working at this tech-know-logically perfected assembly line, i.e. contemporary science is definitely not an intellectual beauty contest. About 60% of new arable land (resources) on this globe is situated in your continent and 'the economic machinery' knows this fact, i.e. science has additionally become a tool of political supremacy. The ethical corruption of science is indeed an issue; all prophets of humankind have taught us to practice an earth sharing economy.However, I will not follow your appeal, because I am applying the scientific method with an other intention and goal. Best wishes: stephen i. ternyik

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

Newton

The infinite God can not by us, in the present limitation of our faculties, be comprehended or conceived.

Hamilton

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Einstein

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

Heisenberg

God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.

Dirac

I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God — an ordinary God of religion — a consistent possibility?

Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don’t believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it.

Thank you for your excellent discussion on existence of God. Your words…

….. “Reproduction - what is it? Why do organisms need to make a copy of themselves? By observing ourselves in teenage or young life in the wilderness, we can tell that we don't plan to make copies of ourselves, but we are drawn to the opposite sex of our kind by way of an inherent desire which is not the desire of self replication, and this attraction results in the replication of ourselves.” ……

Hope you will have a look in my essay also, where I discussed about reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe.

I feel reproduction is a basic property of nature or Universe. I don’t know the difference between God and Universe….

I think it's great to have a wide range of views. Yours may interestingly be aligned with a 'mathematical universe' view as logically some greater intelligence is then implied. I find that a more detailed view of matter and evolution can explain much but still not exclude a god.

I also have sympathy for your views ref our effect on the planet. The problem I see which you may help with is, where was mankind supposed to stop? There weren't enough caves to stop back then so we had to build shelters, so we had to from and use tools to dig and cut wood, so came the log, wheel, and oil, all around long before Jesus. Once we had the wheel it seems to me that F1 (etc) may have been an unavoidable consequence.

So where do you think we should have stopped? How? and do you think we can get back there without wiping out billions of gods innocent children?

Also; do you think a 'purpose' may be to finally travel space and find new homes?

I am glad that you asked these very important questions. To answer your question, let me quote what the Book of Truth commands man to do with earth and please notice the part in upper case letters:

'And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to DRESS IT AND TO KEEP IT. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die' [Genesis 2:15]

So man was given the earth to dress it and to keep it. Per the letters of the book, man is not allowed to pollute it, to deforest it, to factory fish it, to industrialize it, to engineer it, to asphalt it, to drive cars on it, to spill poison on or in it, to toast it by feaul etc. I was discussing indicators of time with Mr. Eckard Blumscheinv trying to show him when the earth truly started to be messed up. Of course I was not around to count world population before the industrial revolution, nor can I be sure the seven billion count we are being told today is true because I didn't count it myself. But if we take the publicly available population estimates for many hundred years before the advent of modern science, especially before the industrial revolution and do the conventional exponential growth projection to it, we find that the population size grew linearly and the figures would not be the way we see it now if there was no science. It would be less by close to six billion count. There was an exponential rise around the time of the industrial revolution. What that means is that science already messed up with the earth's natural circuitry (echo system to use science's parlance) that God put in place. It is clear. Either, as is claimed by many, science reduced child mortality rate, increased life expectancy, reduced epidemics, provided medicine to cure diseases and therefore take responsibility for the population explosion (and for the near complete extinction of what science calls megafauna) or if anyone denies science's messy hand in the eighteenth century exponential population explosion then that someone must also deny that science reduced child mortality rate, increased life expectancy, reduced epidemics, provided medicine to cure diseases etc. Which one is it? Men of science should choose one or the other, not both. As they say, 'science wants to have the cake and eat it too'.

I must do justice to your pointedly purpose driven question and, with God's help, try to answer it as precisely as you asked it. When Francesco Petrarca of Italy climbed Mount Ventoux in France and declared that he accomplished that by himself and took pride in his accomplishment and when he introduced the need to turn to the self and when humanity became the center of interest, that is when the philosophy of humanism should have been stopped. The renaissance philosophy of the 'self' gave rise to the credo known as the "pursuit of happiness." Men became pleasure seeking animals and individual feats at excelling in the promotion of the self gained social currency. Extracting pleasure by destroying the natural surrounding earned celebrity and was given a prestigious name: "innovation." From there, for the pursuit of pleasure, destructive activities spread around the world like wild fire. The destruction never relented ever since. Secularism gave it a great boost too. So, the renaissance movement is what and where and when it should have been stopped. If everybody agrees to drop science and its products and, in its place, pledge allegiance to Christianity and its commandments alone - Christianity as it was before the middle ages - then I believe we will be able to regain natural conditions may be gradually. The key is moderate living, as prescribed by the bible but the question is: can a westerner agree to moderate living? He should.

Regarding your question on finding new homes in space, my answer is no. Science cannot furnish anything at all, it only steals furniture furnished by God. But the Lord said in His Book that the earth would be befouled so bad by science [Dan, Rev.] that He will provide a new earth. I believe that will happen because the Lord's word is good and He does provide and He does furnish it too.

Well answered, though doubtless many would say cites may just be 'dressing' the earth.

I agree that ours and ALL planets will indeed be renewed, and have (scientifically!) identified the evidence that a recycling process (also explaining re-ionization) has been undergone many times before and will likely continue. Penrose has an incomplete model similar to the 'big bounce'. I just posted a link under John Hodges essay to my joint published paper on the more consistent and complete model, also on DOI here;

My essay is consistent with that. I hope you may read, score and comment on it.

I'm sure you're realistic about the chances of western man giving up technology. I also agree we have a damaging homocentric view, which I wrote of here a few years ago. A New Yorker may answer 'where is the dog?' by saying "300yds to my left heading this way." An African or Asian may more likely say; "under the tall tree beside the bend in the river moving north."

In all my readings and dealings with people, I have never found a time or location where entire groups of humans lived without harming some part of nature &/or other humans. There might be short periods of time where the impact is minimal, but humans seem to have a desire to 'be more' than they are (I will not say 'better' as that requires a comparison against something few will agree on).

I think you have placed a problem with humanity, in general, on one aspect of humanity, science. If we were to do as you suggest, I believe humans would again attempt to 'be more' and some different set of problems would occur and we would be facing devastation in another form.

I think you are looking at a symptom of the problem and not the root cause.

The chances of all humanity shifting to your solution is extremely small, so is there a different direction to consider with a higher chance of success?

Modern Science is the root cause, not the symptom, of almost all of the major calamities the earth and its inhabitants are facing today. If a person is sick after taking poison, you don't give more of the poison to him to save him. Being the unfair beneficiary of the ways of science, the elite press for more of the poison. It is sad. The earth is expiring while we watch. There are two directions. What will save the earth is only an upright Christian life to the letters of the bible and moderation in consumption, which the Christian book commands. The other direction is science's, which is merciless and evil beyond a doubt. If what you have in mind is environmental protocols, ideas of solar panels, electric cars etc, that is too little too late. The earth is now in the hands of people who harm it. They are dark-hearted, extremely clever, powerful and dangerous. Life has no chance of not only thriving but also continuance in their hands. My part is to convey the message. Those who are wise will understand my story, but I am sorry for those who won't.

“When I was a child in Ethiopia my friends and I used to go down to the rivers which were clean and used to drink from them. There were no factories, no chemicals, no deodorants, no lipsticks and no waste contaminating rivers or groundwater. …

It is clear that an act of murder is committed on earth by men of science and the earth is groaning of the wound it sustained and it doesn't have much longer to live.”

Albert Einstein said that

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. And also said that

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Your essay deals with issues that are deeply personal to me. I see how everywhere the fruits of Science are put to use as tools of destruction, and as a means for the elite class to subjugate the common people. Indeed, it could be argued that Science has done more harm than good, and disproportionate levels of harm in places like Africa where folks are blameless of some of the excesses of Western society, but bear the brunt of our harsh edges as corporations come more and more to dominate the landscape. Yet even here; developers swoop in, and what used to be forest near my home is now denuded - leaving the wildlife displaced.

I had a heart to heart talk about 10 years ago with Pete Seeger, the well-known and now departed Folk singer, about the subject of your essay! As it turns out; Charles Seeger, Pete's Dad, was a happy go lucky man most of his life, but later became terrified in later years by the horrifying destructive power that scientists were putting in the hands of the world's despots. He mounted a campaign to convince the scientists of the world to stop doing Science, with somewhat different motives from yours, but with every bit as much fervor and earnest intent. You can find a version of the story in Pete's book "Where Have Al the Flowers Gone?" on pages 282-283.

Pete was lecturing me on getting scientists to be responsible for their creations, and the unintended consequences of scientific research, when I was headed to Australia to attend the 10th Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference. But Pete was much more optimistic about Science than his Dad. He argued that one can't put the genie back in the bottle, so the only solution is to learn more than the folks who created today's problems knew. He felt it was better for people to keep learning and growing, because that's how problems are solved.

I hope you are not surprised that I was brought up as a believer in the Christian faith, a Lutheran to be more specific, and I continue to be shaped by those beliefs. I read extensively in the bible, and I also read the learned commentary of both believers and historians. I became a hard-core student of both the Old and New testaments, at one point, and I could likely teach you something about the scriptures. Did you know (for example) there were once two versions of the Torah, because the northern tribes believed in Elohim the Lord, and the southern tribes in YHWH the ineffable God?

Over time; I also came to read the Bhagavad Gita, Tao te Ching and I Ching, the Analects of Confucius, Buddhist Sutras, the Koran, and so on. However; I don't think anyone should believe in God because of what somebody else wrote! I think people need to try to come to know God, and that if they apply the scientific method to their own experiences they will come to know God exists. I did this also, and learned how to visit where God resides.

There are a lot of scientists who are believers in God Mulugeta. If you go to the website of Arnold Neumaier at the University of Vienna; you will find he has devoted several pages to scriptural references - citing how the handiwork of God shows up in the subject of Mathematics. The ancient Egyptians taught that the Divine had to fashion its own body first, and then the Cosmos. Over time; I have come to imagine as Peter does above, that the body of God is Mathematics, and that natural law on Earth is a consequence of heavenly law - which is how the Divine became embodied.

I tried several times to respond to your concerns, after reading your essay, but it all fell short of explaining where I stand in a thoughtful way - and it felt hollow. I think there are several wrong-headed ideas in your essay. I also feel it fails to capture some of the most pressing reasons why people should consider stopping scientific research seriously. In addition; you also fail to remain on topic as to how goals and aims come to be, except to assert that they are somehow the gifts of God.

However; I felt your pain so deeply it was hard to imagine that harsh criticism would do anything to help make things better. So while I don't think to stop doing Science is the answer, I feel your emotional plea in my heart and gut.

Although you might miss it, because I never once mention God in my essay, I do talk about divine creation and the heavenly order right in the middle of page 6. The idea I present is that the higher order found in the heavenly creation inspires humans to take a longer view and do the right thing. That is; by emulating God and the way the Divine works in nature, we are inspired to delay gratification in favor of lasting fulfillment and more meaningful creations on the whole. This is one part of how I see the ways of divinity projected on the affairs of human beings. Do you agree with this assessment?

I was tied up at work and did not have a chance to visit here in the last few days. I just saw your comment. I can't give you feedback today as I am now exhausted after a long day work. God willing, I will get back to you tomorrow or Saturday.

I just listened to Pete Seeger's song: 'Where Have all the Flowers Gone', but couldn't find an online version of his book. I will be surprised to find anyone in history who stood against science, because the book of wisdom tells us that it is a rarity. That is why I would like to know a little more about Charles Seeger's campaign that you mentioned. I also heard...

I just listened to Pete Seeger's song: 'Where Have all the Flowers Gone', but couldn't find an online version of his book. I will be surprised to find anyone in history who stood against science, because the book of wisdom tells us that it is a rarity. That is why I would like to know a little more about Charles Seeger's campaign that you mentioned. I also heard of this man they call Theodore John Kaczynski who opposed the industrial society. I could see that this man understood science pretty well but he did not understand the Lord God because he was as violent as science itself. So, considerations of meliorating science and its deadly venom are pointless without first considering the spirited path of the Majestic God.

I also see that you trust more in man's knowledge and that you think applying "the scientific method" will lead to knowing God. The problem is, in the west, applying "the scientific method" did not lead to God. It led to death instead. Man is a created being like other animals, except that God bestowed on man the faculty to consider his Creator. So, by the nature of his creation, man is limited in knowledge as to understand the works of nature as animals have no intuition to the awareness that man has access to. Man's knowledge, as the good book tells us, is the Christ, because, in so doing, man understands all that is good to life. A self aggrandized expedition to knowledge is a vanity, and the proof is, as I have shown in my essay, in the mathematics itself which tells the story that knowledge is forbidden. I understand that the seeking of knowledge by the vain efforts of man is addictive and almost everyone is tempted by it. If knowledge of the nature of things be amenable to the toil of man, then every person on earth should be considered a "scientist" as everyone has a hunch - a plausible explanation - to it. Do you remember the 750 GeV bump the LHC reported? Almost immediately there were many hundreds of elaborate theoretical explanations offered in publications before it was reported the bump never existed. That right there answers all queries about science that it is a vanity and however much men labor to seek the knowledge of nature through their self-extolled intellectual abstractions, they will not find out what it is. Offers of plausible explanation are infinite but true knowledge is one. You don't have infinite time in your hands to find it out. That is why man must seek God as only He can tell us what is good to know or to live for. Also, the act of Christian life is different from western imaginings. Many dismiss Christianity by what abominable crimes the west committed in its name. What these people who dismiss it don't understand is that the west was not Christian but anti-Christian. The west only used Christianity as an instrument of gold digging while at the same time tarnishing its image. However, the west's use of science is different. Science is not something that was good that the west used for bad purposes. No, that is not the case. Science itself is an evil doctrine that inspires man to kill his brother in many ways. Science, the doctrine, imbues man with contempt and drives him towards cleverness and towards skepticism and arms him with derision. Science is a confusion, not a clarity.

Does science lead to anything that is good? No! It only destroys life on earth. Death -global death - is the whole story about science. Men of science know it too. As reported by CNN, Mr. Stephen William Hawking recently stated that humanity has one thousand years left because of (what science did) 'climate change, nukes, robots'. As in his "black hole" conjecture, he is a liar here too. With science and the beast who wields it, man does not even have twenty five years. Of course there is this lazing in the delusion of 'setting up colonies elsewhere in other solar systems'. The recent euphoria that NASA caused by declaring a false hope of having found a new solar system with seven earths it named the "TRAPPIST-1" is one example. Forty light years away, it will take about twelve thousand years to get there with NASA's rockets. even if we say NASA improved the speed by making it twice as fast, it will take at least six thousand years to fly there. What is the point of salivating for the unobtainable? Man has no chance outside earth that God gave us. To come up with such a ridiculous false hope, science consumes huge recourses of the earth at the same time starving Africans to death. Earth is the sole pleasure and beauty that man has and it would be better for man to dress it and keep it by shutting down all science institutions, industries, nuclear stations, the manufacturing of poison, science thinking, greed and science cultures. Moderate living in the praising of the Lord God shall replace them all.

An endeavor in the pursuit of science will not take you to any place better. I see that you have musical, mathematical and artistic talents. How pleased would the Lord be (as well as man in the end) if you had used this gift to free man from the damning yokes of science!